Propaganda Files: Accidental Propaganda?

The question, "Is there such a thing as accidental propaganda?" In other words, if there is no intent to propagandize, is the effect of a piece of writing or film sufficient to justify calling it "propaganda?" I bring this up because the Christian Datoc Washington Examiner piece I discussed yesterday has some interesting quirks of language. These quirks may have had effects on readers that were unintended by both Datoc and The Examiner. Without mind reading skills, I have no way of knowing the intentionality. Regardless, I think these quirks of writing are worth a brief look.

I think that I'm correct in saying that The Examiner is considered conservative. Therefore one might, in today's bipolar political environment, expect Examiner pieces to possibly be Kennedy-friendly as a way to undermine President Biden. Yet some of the language choices in yesterday's Datoc piece did Kennedy no favors.

For example, Datoc uses the line, "Kennedy claimed in a recently unearthed video that COVID-19 was genetically engineered to protect Chinese and Jewish people." This is a very curious translation or interpretation of what Kennedy actually said. Kennedy did not "claim" anything. He said that some people claimed it but did not himself take any ownership of it. Then the phrase "genetically engineered" comes into play. The problem is that one could torturously interpret "genetically engineered" multiple ways. Most readers would likely read it as implying human intervention or direction. Technically, however, one could say "genetically engineered" to simply refer to the virus engineering itself via natural selection or other processes.

Another line from Datoc's piece was "During Monday's briefing, however, Jean-Pierre directly refuted Kennedy's claims." First of all, she did not. The word "refute" has meaning. "Trying to refute" is not synonymous with "refute." Second, Datoc is gauging the nature and effectiveness of Jean-Pierre's presentation for the reader by baldly claiming that Jean-Pierre "refuted" Kennedy. Datoc is offering himself in a judge role, which isn't really his job. Worse for him, he got it wrong. Jean-Pierre did not refute Kennedy.

Conclusion

I can hypothesize that Datoc misstepped journalistically because he was reporting under deadline immediately after the press conference event, and he presumed that he was conveying the gist of the story. I think that he took too much interpretative responsibility onto himself and botched the piece with a couple of bad word choices. I suspect neither he nor The Examiner are very happy about it.

Bob Dietz

July 18, 2023

Propaganda Files: Straw Men, Lying, and Implying

As reported Monday by The Washington Examiner, the White House attacked some RFK Jr. statements. Undoubtedly because they preferred to not use actual quotes of what the man said, they manipulated and paraphrased in an effort to score points among those who don't grasp the finer points of evidence-based debate or the English language. As to whether Kennedy was trying to appear anti-Jewish without actually saying anything explicitly anti-Jewish, I have no idea.

It is, however, instructive to examine exactly what was said by the White House press secretary, even though she avoided directly quoting her target. The Examiner article by Christian Datoc made some curious language choices of its own, but let's save that for another day and tackle press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's attempt to nail Kennedy. Here's a direct quote, courtesy of Datoc:

"I think if you look at the last two, three years since 2020, since this pandemic hit, there are countless Americans, American families who are seeing an empty seat at the Thanksgiving table. So the claims made on that tape are false. It is vile, and they put our fellow Americans in danger."

I feel it necessary to point out that this is all paraphrasing and NOT stating what Kennedy actually said, and it's basically a verbal gobbledygook that has no direct application to what Kennedy stated. This mishmash debunks nothing. Here's another Jean-Pierre word salad salvo:

"If you think about the racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories that come out of saying those types of things, it's an attack on our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans, and so it is important that we speak out when we hear those claims."

Note that Jean-Pierre still doesn't quote Kennedy directly, doesn't mention the points he was making, doesn't even try to refute what he said with data or logical argument. This would be a big fat fail in any debate class or civics class or technical writing class. She continues:

"the assertion that COVID was genetically engineered to spare Jewish and Chinese people is offensive, and incredibly dangerous."

Jean-Pierre, who I'm sure is very implication-savvy, throws the word "assertion" at the audience. I think most people have a very loose idea of what "assertion" really means, so of course I looked it up.

Assertion: a confident or forceful statement of fact or belief.

Well, since Kennedy did NOT assert this, I'd have to label Jean-Pierre a pure propagandist here. Kennedy mentions that the argument has been made that COVID was designed to do this, but then immediately states that he does not know whether it was deliberately targeted or not. He uses a weasel technique, passive voice, to bring the idea to mind, but then states that he has no evidence to back up the idea. If you mention something but then undercut it a sentence later, that is NOT making "a confident or forceful statement of fact or belief." In other words, Jean-Pierre is not being truthful in her characterization of what Kennedy said.

Kennedy

Here's what Kennedy actually said:

"COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese."

Followed by:

"We don't know whether it was deliberately targeted or not, but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact."

Now Kennedy isn't blameless here. The phrase "is targeted" can be read as implying agency. But the fact is that Kennedy makes his salient point, namely that certain people are more resistant to COVID-19 than others, which (if false) is what Jean-Pierre should have made clear to the millions listening to her.

But she didn't do that. And you haven't exactly heard the topic explored on CNN or MSNBC, so guess what? I'd bet that Mr. Kennedy has these particular facts pretty much correct. Based on the White House content and style, I've gotta believe Jean-Pierre not refuting these differential COVID-19 effects means she cannot.

Back and Forth

Kennedy tweeted on Saturday that he "never, ever said that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews." He then stated that the US and other countries were indeed developing ethnically targeted bioweapons. Outside of recent James Bond movies, I know nothing about this, but perhaps he does. 

Meanwhile, the White House press secretary wrapped up her propaganda spree with:

"Every aspect of these comments reflect some of the most abhorrent antisemitic conspiracy theories throughout history and contributes to today's dangerous rise of antisemitism, and so this is something that, you know, this president and this whole administration is going to stand against."

At no point does she try to refute Kennedy's core argument, namely that some people are provably more immune to COVID-19 than others. Instead we get some flag waving and rhetoric that has not much to do with Kennedy's comments.

Going Forward

I never thought anything could be worse than President Trump's press secretaries. But here we are. Jean-Pierre doesn't even bother to address, argue, or refute the core statements being made by Kennedy. Instead she's off on some oblique God Save the Queen (or maybe the Jews) attack rant. The days of someone saying something factual, and then being refuted, appear to be finished. The factual-ness of what's being said gets drowned out by verbal camouflage and appeals to wokeness. 

If the White House designs and promotes this kind of trash propaganda against political rivals, where do we go from here? This kind of thing, I think, is actually worse than hearing blustery "Low Energy Jeb" and "Pocahontas" when Trump was holding forth. At least he helmed his own hatchet speeches.

Bob Dietz

July 17, 2023

Cocaine, Kardashians, and Alien Abductions

I suppose some of you are wondering about the title. Well, I am going to do something rare, namely plug an offshore sports book. BetOnline.ag had odds on everything in the title. I love it. The props were listed under "Entertainment" futures. 

Until a few days ago, BetOnline had odds for, "Who is the owner of the White House cocaine?" The first number I had seen from them was Hunter Biden as the favorite at +170. People must know something about Travis Kelce, the KC tight end, because he was originally listed as the fourth choice at a miserly +800. In an odds move reminiscent of Score's Lock of the Year, Hunter Biden took all kinds of money quickly. His odds blew up to -500. Kelce tumbled into Snoop Dogg territory (+1200). Of course, now that the Secret Service has put a lid on the cocaine investigation (they "don't know and have no suspects" -- LOL), BetOnline pulled the cocaine odds. Damned shame.

Meanwhile, "Kim Kardashian's Next Lover" has also been yanked as a prop. If anyone is wondering about an ethnicity angle, Tom Brady was the first white dude listed, a fifth choice at +800. I suppose that suggests that Brady is a real man about town, which has been rumored for some time.

Fortunately, we can all still bet on aliens. We can wager on their skin color, where they will first land (Russia and the U.S. co-faves at +1200), and who will be abducted first. Trump is the fave at +2000.

I realize that people will bemoan no longer being able to bet on cocaine and Kim K's next lover, but BetOnline offers plenty of alternative action. Kevin Spacey's next lover, for example. Plus an entire array of props regarding the Zuckerberg/Musk cage fight. Most of the latter involve penis length, but action is action.

Are These Real Bets?

Evidently they are. I just tried to put a few bucks on Musk's penis length being longer than Zuckerberg's. Musk is -200. The wager panels worked. I did not confirm my bet, but everything seems to be live and working. 

While it is indeed sad that I failed to have the courage of my Musk convictions, at some point I will hit the confirm button. What am I waiting for? Well, I'm notoriously tight, like Musk, and the size of the wager must be rigorously debated.

Bob Dietz

July 16, 2023

Cubs' Relief Pitching: A Rant

Well, I'm no baseball expert, but somebody please fire the Cubs' manager, David Ross. I have no understanding of how managing hires are made, but I can't find any reason for this guy to be heading one of the classic, historic, iconic MLB squads. His pitcher choices have become almost legendary -- akin to Seinfeld's George Costanza before he realized that he should just do the opposite of whatever he was planning to do. Ross has become a reverse manager -- someone who somehow has a gift for losing games. Last week, Cubs' management made the comment that the Cubs have a real knack for losing games that aren't pretty. The handwriting appears to be on the wall, so somebody please underline it in Day-Glo chalk and read it aloud.

Whereas the Reds blindly stagger through all manner of emotionally draining, extra-inning twister games and manage to win, the Cubs flail like windmills with broken arms.

I tried to come up with an appropriate analogy for Cubs' middle relief. Please pick one of the following:

(1) The Cubs' middle relief is like a pinata. It gets hit until the fans' guts fall out.

(2) The Cubs' middle relief is like watching Joe Frazier versus George Foreman. You close your eyes until someone tells you it's over. And you never really need to ask what happened.

(3) Cubs' middle relief is like tattoos on Tub Girl. They're a minor respite and distraction until, inevitably, you throw up.

Please choose (1), (2) or (3) and email your preference to IntegritySports@aol.com.

Thanks.

Bob Dietz

July 6, 2023

Affirmative Action Ruling

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down the judgement that affirmative action should not be a guiding principle in college admissions. MSNBC immediately did a harbinger-of-doom piece suggesting that the world will now go to hell in a handbasket. Me? I'm ambivalent, but I have my own recommended solution.

My Background

I'm white, German/Polish, male, and from a small town and a relatively poor school district. By "relatively poor," I mean that when I was 15, some 23 schools in Pennsylvania were labeled as unsuitable and unsafe. Seven of those schools were in the collection of small mining towns comprising my school district. By "unsafe," I don't mean that people were selling drugs (much) or taking guns to school. It meant that the schools themselves were dilapidated and falling down around students' ears. 

I spent the first 10 years of my life in half a double my father was able to rent for $50 a month from the elderly women next door because my grandfather, the milkman, was considered an honorable and respectable man. My father did various chores for the two women to augment the $50 rent payment. Winter nights were somewhat cold in the Dietz household at that time. Heat was at a premium even though my grandfather also wildcatted coal at night from mines all over the county.

Being white, German, and male did not aid me in my attempts to go to college. What paid the bill was a National Merit Scholarship because I managed 1450 on the SAT and graduated first in my high school class. At Penn State, I still had "Popcorn Tuesdays" where all I ate was popcorn because my scholarship sort of covered my expenses, but not by much. And yes, I had a roommate in my studio apartment. And yes, my friend on the track team sneaked me into the athletic cafeteria for an occasional free meal. 

This is no "Coal Miner Elegy" riff. It was all banal stuff to be overcome. 

Ambiguity as a Plus

I have a friend who is half Caucasian and half Japanese. When applying for college and grad school, this prospective student had the option of labeling as White or Asian and opted for White because whites are held to a lower standard. I saluted the strategic thinking.

On Thursday, CNN's Abby Phillip interviewed Kenny Xu, one of the members of the organization that won the affirmative action case. When Xu rightly pointed out that admittance standards are lowered for Black students, Phillip (who is Black) abruptly ended the interview. Xu had stated that an Asian student must score 270 points higher to be on an equal admittance footing with a Black student. Evidently, one cannot have that on CNN. Would it have killed Phillip to end the interview with "Thanks for the facts," as opposed to "Thank you for your perspective." Recently, CNN seems to have a tough time understanding that "facts" and "perspective" are not synonyms.

I'm not going to weep because race has been downgraded as a college admittance factor. Of course, as  populations, Black and Hispanic students are at a disadvantage educationally in the United States. That isn't the fault of the current crop of White students and certainly not the fault of the current crop of Asian students. 

My Solution

I haven't mentioned recently that I'm left of Marx when it comes to most mega-societal issues like education, health care, and support of unions. I say that if people want en masse affirmative action, scale college admissions to socioeconomic status. My perspective is radical. Scale admissions to the proportion of candidates in distinct economic categories. Are you the child of a one-percenter? One percent of college admissions are reserved for you. And so on down to poverty levels. That would be interesting.

Okay, so nobody is going to buy that. To those of us who are left of Marx, it's still better than admitting on a curve based on race.

Bob Dietz

June 30, 2023

Submersibles, Race Cars, and a P-40: Halo Effects

Skydiving was never on my bucket list. In fact, I've never been a big fan of high-risk physical endeavors. As someone who's a consultant to high stakes sports gamblers, one might think I wouldn't be risk averse. But I am. Basically, my job for 45 years has been to cull 99.9% of all gambling opportunities and continually tell people, "No, that's a bad idea."

I never, as I said, had any interest in skydiving. As a student at Penn State's Pattee Library, I'd read quite a few skydiving magazines. The back pages were filled with listings of accidents, almost all of which had the tagline, "Death by impact."

My youngest brother drove an explosives truck for years, then helped manage a warehouse filled with blasting supplies. I never wanted either job. 

Halo Effects

One thing about gambling is that if you're wearing a halo because you did something great, it can quickly become an albatross, and eventually a noose, if you're not committed to an unrelenting process of self-evaluation. This brings us to the heavy burden of being a billionaire or thereabouts. And I'm not kidding. It cannot be an easy thing to be a billionaire or flagship business commander and to grasp, as Harry Callahan famously says at the conclusion of Magnum Force, that "A man's got to know his limitations."

In one week, a collection of older gentlemen all died doing things I cannot understand. The Titan submersible implodes 12,000 feet down, filled with a crew of fearless, intelligent men who really should have known better. Meanwhile, billionaire James Crown, 70, died at a Woody Creek racetrack near Aspen, Colorado on Sunday, June 25. Driving solo, he crashed into an impact barrier. Yesterday, Paul Ehlen, founder of Precision Lens back in the '90s, died shortly after takeoff while solo piloting a vintage P-40E.

Why did these accomplished men make such high-risk behavioral decisions? As athletes and human beings, they are well past their physical and reaction-time primes. Why put at risk your responsibilities to the vast resources you've accrued? So you could play John Wayne?

Maybe nobody told them that these were really stupid, irresponsible things to do. Maybe that's the burden of being uber successful and in charge. People around you tend to not proclaim when you're doing dumb things.

Halo effects perceived by others have those dangers. The real and ultimate issue, however, may be when supermen fail to understand that being superhuman in the past or being superhuman at one task doesn't carry over into new decades or different endeavors. We degrade. And being great at one thing is no guarantee of being competent at something else. The uber accomplished often shoulder the additional problem of being insulated from frank criticism or call-outs. In a way, their accomplishments have earned them added danger.

In the world of gambling, halo effects have done the best of the best no favors. For Stu Ungar, poker savant, it was sports betting. For T.J. Cloutier, another great poker player, he liked the dice. For some famous successful sports handicappers like Tony Salinas and Mike Lee, the ponies kept calling. Why does everyone want to conquer the world?

What kind of a culture drives the best and brightest to try to exceed their limitations? Why is sound judgement not as valued as swashbuckling? The irony of the Titan, of course, is that the arrogant use of non-standard design, materials, and protocols was used to seek out the Titanic, itself a metaphor for technological arrogance. The irony of it all should have served as a blazing red alert.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, all of the accomplishments of these men likely carried the seeds of their own destruction.

Bob Dietz

June 28, 2023

More Thoughts on the LIV/PGA Merger

I suppose my cynical outlook contributed to my getting so many aspects of LIV versus PGA correct. As I noted in my May 23 (2023) "LIV and Super Bowl III," Koepka stood in for Joe Namath, and the 2023 PGA Championship stood in admirably for Super Bowl III. Of course, just as with the NFL/AFL scenario in 1969, negotiations were clearly long in progress before the events' results sanctified the negotiations.

What right did anyone have to question, based on alleged competition level, Joe Namath's 400K bonus for signing with the AFL Jets? What right did anyone have to denigrate DeChambeau or Koepka or Dustin Johnson or Mickelson, based on competition level, for signing with LIV? 

On June 5, the day BEFORE the LIV/PGA merger was made public, I wrote "LIV vs. PGA: More Eamon Lynch." The closing paragraph implied that the LIV and PGA goals and priorities were virtually synonymous. The primary difference was simply the acronym used.

Did PGA Golfers Really Not See the Handwriting on the Wall?

I guess I'm surprised that many of the PGA golfers said that they were surprised by the merger announcement. Or perhaps most of it was feigned surprise. Surely, the PGA golfers had to have some sense of the scale involved. Back on July 5 (2022) in my "The Saudi Golf Tour (Part Two)," I wrote:

"Watching an attempted monopoly (the PGA) twist in the wind because it lacks the funding to compete on equal terms with what amounts to a proprietorship is...quite funny. All that American wealth overmatched by non-American wealth. It doesn't happen that often. We should appreciate the show."

Is the show now finished with the merger announcement? Well, not quite. American political factions will try to pick up some morality points by challenging the merger. Not as entertaining as watching the Saudi sharks gobble up the PGA guppies (to employ one of Eamon Lynch's metaphors), but hand-wringing and loud speeches on "sportswashing" will, at some point, make their way onto CNN. 

Until then, let's just enjoy the golf. The merger, in my mind, seemed likely from the beginning of all this. The PGA players' financial managers must have spelled it out for them. And yet none of the PGA stalwarts, buttressed by their unflinching morality, publicly anticipated the merger and jumped ship for the Japanese Tour. 

To quote the great philosopher, Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Bob Dietz

June 16, 2023

Heat/Nuggets Postscript

Article Recommendation

Before delving into my personal take on Game Five and the NBA playoffs in general, I want to recommend DJ Dunson's "Nikola Jokic made a monkey of Heat culture" published June 13 by Deadspin. It's an entertaining piece that begins by comparing Jokic to Babe Ruth and rolls on with half a dozen great riffs and observations. I don't exactly agree with everything Dunson writes, but I love the way he wrote it. Really entertaining.

Game Five

Well, I talked up the Heat and Nuggets prior to Game Five, so of course they went out and got all raggedy. A lot of turnovers, including some dumb ones, and questionable shot selection/distribution from both teams, but the intensity was there from start to finish. 

Butler shrugged off a rough opening three quarters to give Miami a chance down the stretch. Denver, meanwhile, managed its way through myriad early foul trouble that created uncomfortable and rare court combinations during the first half. Christian Braun trying to guard Lowry was horrific, but somehow Denver arrived at halftime with a chance.

Officiating

Ten years from now, when AI is doing three-dimensional evaluation of what should or should not be called, we'll all know badly teams got the worst of it in these games. For the series, all I'll say is that the officiating did not favor Denver. In Game Three, when Miami halved an insurmountable deficit in the final five minutes, the Heat were beneficiaries of four to five calls/non-calls which were egregious. In this Game Five, again down the stretch, the Heat benefited from roughly a three call/non-call advantage. Butler drawing three foul shots, and the call not being overturned, was ridiculous. I'm sure the NBA would have preferred a Game Six and Game Seven, but a little massaging didn't get them there. The foul situation during the first half was bad enough as it compromised Denver's rotation, but the Nuggets managed their way through it, although not in a pretty fashion.

Kudos to Both Teams

Miami played a lot more zone Game Five, and it worked well. The zone principles suckered Denver into launching a lot of threes at the wrong times. They were reasonably good open threes, but not optimal shot distribution. How Braun wound up trying to guard Lowry a bunch of first half possessions is between God, the Nuggets coaching staff, and whatever they were smoking in that rarified atmosphere.

Congrats to the Nuggets, a middling regular-season defensive squad, for turning up the defensive intensity during the playoffs. Braun/Lowry aside, they had very few stretches of questionable or sloppy defense. Their length across the board played a role. Many of the tweener shots favored by Butler were more difficult because size was everywhere. 

It was a really good series.

Bob Dietz

June 13, 2023

NBA: A Salute to Denver and Miami

Denver is poised, with a 3-1 series lead, to wrap things up tonight versus Miami. 

My NBA interest peaked during the Bird/Magic days, with an older peak back in the time of the Laker 33-game win streak and Alcindor on the Bucks. While I have great respect and admiration for Steph Curry and the Warriors' consistent winning, I've never been in love with the modern NBA or the three-point shot, even at NBA distances, where all buckets are indeed earned and a testament to great skill.

Part of my distaste for the three stems from my first rec league game incorporating the three in the State College (PA) rec league. We had a good team, but our roster consisted of old men, two women, and one  Division 2-quality guard in his 20's. Our first game with a three-point line, we shot 21 of 40 from behind the arc. Being old men and textbook-adhering women, we were Hoosier style purists, so despite our success, we recognized how the arc could (and would) ruin the dynamics and decision-making of basketball. Our consensus after that 21 of 40 game was, "This'll ruin the game for sure, but oh well, we're old. It's not hurting us."

So it's with a sigh of appreciation that I watch Denver versus Miami, two old-school squads that shoot plenty of threes but play the game more like 1970's squads than today's Warriors. Nikola Jokic looks much like Bill Walton in 1977, when he was surgically torturing my beloved 76ers from the high post. Jimmy Butler is great; he plays like he means it. I have always been a Butler fan. There are only a handful of NBA players that I'd recommend high school players emulate, and Butler is one of them. He belongs in that collection of all-time textbook players like Ray Allen and Joe Dumars. 

Denver is the better team; Miami is overmatched. But the Heat are too solid and their decisions too savvy for them to collapse or surrender any given game. They are a classic pain-in-the-ass underdog. Denver had that brain dead five minutes in the second half of Game Two, and it cost them that game. The Heat effort is consistent and top of the line. You slip up or lie down, you go stupid for a stretch, and the Heat win. Meanwhile, Denver has been able to maintain reasonably consistent, solid defense minute to minute in an NBA where the officiating makes it almost impossible to do so. Denver's size undoubtedly helps in this regard.

I salute both squads. It's been a pleasure watching them.

Bob Dietz

June 12, 2023

LIV-PGA Merger: Sportswashing

As reported by Fox News, LIV golfer and former PGA stalwart Martin Kaymer had this to say, "I'm really looking forward to the reaction of all the people who said, 'We don't want to play for blood money...We don't want to sell our soul.'" Kaymer also suggested that the PGA golfers who refused to sully their checking accounts with Saudi money and lambasted those who did, could now play on the Japanese Tour.

I've always had some questions regarding the PGA's initial PR stance vis-a-vis LIV, especially as it came to defining and labeling "sportswashing." Sportswashing seemed, to me, to be a handy buzzword to go to war with the Saudis via a short-term PR blitz. It's a word that begged one not to look too closely at any national or corporate history. and to focus on the immediate now and the immediate target. I don't even know what to do with the Nike sweatshop angle and the entire subject of sportswashing. The biggest names in sport have rarely had squeaky clean resumes by today's Western standards.

High Profile Events Versus All Events

Accusing Saudi Arabia of sportswashing is all well and good, if your hands are Snow White clean. Getting caught murdering a journalist is horrific, but realistically, if the American CIA has been guilty of a single murder in the last five years, the U.S. is conceivably on the same moral footing as Saudi Arabia. And the U.S. was recently responsible for a drone strike on a misidentified target that resulted in the deaths of children. If you were going to refuse Saudi Arabia blood money for sportswashing, then you may as well refuse U.S. blood money for sportswashing.

Statutes of Limitations

Does "sportswashing" have a statute of limitations, an expiration date? Should it?

Who has the authority to assign statutes of limitations when it comes to "sportswashing?" Who sets the limits of what history counts and what doesn't when it comes to crimes? A long historical lens may view the U.S. harshly for the 200,000 Iraqi civilians who died because we invaded and for misguided drones killing children. Future generations and cultures may have very different views regarding statutes of limitations and sportswashing. Should the statute of limitations be a year, a decade, a century? How does one make that determination? Pragmatism? 

We spend a lot of energy judging the Saudis in the now, which is understandable, but not so much judging ourselves in the recent past. Perhaps the U.S. should be disqualified from all international sports due to its historical moral missteps. Perhaps most nations should be similarly disqualified.

Conclusion

As the LVA-PGA monopoly takes over the world of professional golf, all I can say is that I'm really looking forward to seeing Rory McIlroy on the Japanese Tour. I'm not sure how writer and PGA cheerleader Eamon Lynch's Japanese is progressing, but I'm sure he'll also do swell.

Bob Dietz

June 11, 2023

Revisiting March Madness

When you're right, you're right. 

I wanted to revisit the 2023 NCAA hoops seedings and brackets before they fade into the mists of history. Most of my criticisms of the seedings were laid out in my March 28 "Smoking the Seeds: 2023" and my March 30 "March Madness Meta." My main gripes, at the time, had to do with the beyond curious seedings and scheduling of Memphis and FAU and the shoe-horning into the tournament of the usual collection of Big 10 teams. 

History showed that I was more correct than I realized at the time. I was really, really correct. Concurrent with the NCAA tourney was the NIT. The two Conference USA teams that I mentioned as getting hosed with no NCAA invites were at-the-time 29-7 North Texas and 28-9 UAB. These two teams waded through the entirety of the NIT field to meet in the championship game. North Texas won, 68-61. FAU, meanwhile, was in the NCAA tourney (as a nine seed, 30-win team, no less), made it to the Final Four, and lost 72-71 to San Diego State.

So, the overall major point is that Conference USA went 18-2 in post-season play. One of those losses was the NIT final between two C-USA teams. The other was the one-point loss in the Final Four.

My second major point is that mainstream media basically ignored these outcomes, and here we are, three months later. Nobody remembers that C-USA got hosed, and nobody wants to do anything about it. The conference got screwed in terms of NCAA invitations, in terms of seeding, and (most importantly) in terms of checks written to schools. 

2024 and Beyond

The mirage of NCAA committee seeding legitimacy will go on, of course, as it always does. The brand names will dominate the media, and talking heads will continue to promulgate nonsense like "eye tests" to determine invitations, seedings, and checks written. 

But let's look at the bright side. Ten years from now, AI will be making the tournament seeding decisions. It'll be a better, fairer, sporting world. 

Bob Dietz

June 10, 2023

LIV vs. PGA: More Eamon Lynch

Brooks Koepka's PGA win was, predictably, followed by his coach, Claude Harmon III, calling out the PGA Tour's campaign against LIV golfers. And Harmon's spot-on PGA Tour critiques were, just as predictably, attacked by the PGA Tour's favorite sycophants, such as Eamon Lynch and Brandell Chamblee.

I must admit that I've put some thought into the sociology of this tour-versus-tour friction, and I have serious observations and even more serious questions, which I will broach another time. Today, I just want to revisit some of Lynch's latest nonsense and put a spotlight on this loudest of PGA sycophants.

Being Lynch, Being Wrong, Being Proud of It

First, I want to disagree with something Claude Harmon said regarding Lynch. Harmon said, "I think Eamon is a fantastic writer." I'm old school in that I think Lynch is clever, but (as in most things) the most important thing about cleverness is not relying on it. Generally, the cleverest lines in a piece of writing should be tossed out, as they distract and are too busy being clever to improve the piece.

Second, regarding Eamon Lynch, my God, has he no shame? In 2022, he basically labeled Koepka and Bryson DeChambeau as broken-down has-beens. Don't take my word for it. I quoted Lynch directly in my July 4, 2022, entry "The Comedic Writings of Eamon Lynch." Anyway, my point is that I have not seen a reporter be more wrong than Lynch since Rachel Maddow proclaimed that being vaccinated meant that you couldn't get or transmit Covid-19. Yowza. Wrong on all fronts, in all ways. He (and Maddow) could not have been more incorrect. 

Hard to respect someone who wrote in 2022 that Koepka, "is just an entertainer doomed to exhibitions against the washed-up veterans and no-name youngsters that he's long considered unfit to sniff his jockstrap." Putting aside the implication that Lynch has had insightful conversations with Koepka regarding jockstraps, Lynch has been proven to be the world's worst handicapper. As in, I'll say it again for emphasis, totally wrong. So how does Lynch keep a straight face in 2023 when he has no credibility? Who would give his yapping any credence (other than his PGA Tour taskmasters)? I have no idea.

2023 

Well, at least Lynch has a short memory. Amnesia has its benefits when you're blatantly wrong, I suppose. He's recently decided that Koepka is not a has-been. In his May 25, 2023, propaganda for Golfweek, Lynch says that "Koepka is a formidable predator who chooses to swim in a shallow pond."

Yeah, Lynch decided to close his piece with that bit of cleverness, while ignoring Mickelson and Koepka's Masters results and also ignoring the huge and irrepressible fact that three LIV golfers cracked the top nine at the PGA.

Anybody who edits out key facts whenever it suits him so as to make his narrative case is not a "fantastic writer." He's a hired PR goon, playing sycophant to the usual one-tenth-of-one-percenters who, in this case, identify as PGA rather than LIV.

Bob Dietz

June 5, 2023

An Origin Story and Book Recommendation

People often ask me how I got into this business of sports handicapping and sports betting. Many different threads contributed to this messy life tapestry, so I've never had much of a definitive answer until two years ago.

A couple of friends who had co-written and edited books together approached me about contributing a chapter to their new project about the seminal effects of cars during their youth. The book was about young men and cars that had unique impacts on them. Long-term memories and vehicular rites of passage.

At first I said that all of the cars of my youth were semi-junkers. Practical, beaten up, and more forgettable than memorable. But then one friend mentioned that he had seen a photo of me when I was 17 or so, standing with a group of youths in front of a black Lincoln parked in a cemetery. I responded, "Oh yeah. You know, that wasn't my car, but I guess I do have a car story for you."

My deadline for the piece was a couple of days, so I churned out what I realized was a kind of origin story. Maybe not quite as polished as I'd like, but not too shabby. I'm going to officially recommend the book, Driving Southern, edited by Ralph Bland and Michael Braswell. Published in 2022, it's available on Amazon and in most Barnes and Nobles. My story, "The Car Makes the Man," comes about halfway into the collection. 

If you wondered about my wayward origins, check it out. The other stories, by the way, are better written than mine. If you enjoy driving, classic cars, and revisiting the perceptions of youth, you'll love this book. Enjoy.

Bob Dietz

June 5, 2023

College Baseball Betting Scandal

So now Scott Googins, the Cincinnati baseball coach for six seasons, has resigned. He resigned even though he thus far appears to have done nothing wrong, other than be unaware that his assistant coaches and the father of one his players were betting games.

Well, as I mentioned in my previous entry, the question now becomes, "How ubiquitous is all of this insider betting on college sports?" Honestly, I haven't a clue, but allow me to speculate a bit. My specialty, after all, has been handicapping and betting college sports (specifically football) for 45 years. Surely, I must have a pithy insight or two.

Cheating Potential

Look, nothing defines American college sports better than Cam Newton's old man getting whatever it was (200K to 400K; reports vary) to ship Cam to Auburn. Auburn wins the national title. Everyone finds out that Cam's dad got the cash. The after-the-fact storyline is that Cam did not know, so it's okay. I mean, holy hell, the NCAA actually wanted people to believe that? NCAA must stand for Nabobs Corrupting All Athletes.

Please frame what I'm about to say in light of Cam and Auburn emerging unscathed from egregious profit-taking.

First of all, how difficult would it be to put together a network of savvy "runners" whose job it would be (I almost said "is") to wager for underpaid assistant coaches all across this great country? Not terribly, I would say. Pipelines already exist for using third parties to funnel money to potential college players. Just reverse the process and have the coaches employ runners surreptitiously. It can be done. Hell, I could do it. Not that hard, and really tough to get pinned down as to having done something "illegal."

Easy Money

My May 27 entry teased a way for assistant college coaches to make some spending money without directly wagering on teams. 

Hello, fantasy sports! In my July 24, 2021, entry, "When Fantasy Goes Bad," I summarized the insider trading that had been exposed at both FanDuel and DraftKings. Nothing has really changed. Insiders today can't do it directly; they need beards. Big deal. What an obstacle. Reminds me of the 12-inch Stonehenge from Spinal Tap.

Assistant coaches are perfectly positioned to have friends or family reap the benefits of their insider college sports knowledge. Much of fantasy scoring in college football, for example, hinges on the substitution patterns (or lack thereof) of heavy favorites when they have overmatched opponents beaten. Are they going to yank starters and, to use a wrestling phrase, "lay on them," or do they call plays to impress rankings voters and prop up the confidence of offensive skill folks? Assistant coaches have tremendous advantages over civilians. 

And really, how is the NCAA going to discover it? And really redux, how motivated would the NCAA be to discover it?

There's not a ton of money in college fantasy sports, but there's enough to help low end assistants make their monthly budgets.

Get Over It 

To quote The Eagles, "Get Over It!" College sports betting and college sports fantasy betting are here to stay.  There will be many more scandals in the months ahead. The lower profile the sport, the more assistants will be motivated to make some pocket money. Brace yourself.

Nabobs Corrupting All Athletes. I like it.

Bob Dietz

June 2, 2023

(Bank)Roll Tide!

Alabama head baseball coach Brian Bohannon was fired Friday, May 4. The firing occurred, allegedly, because Bohannon had (once again, allegedly) been involved in the placing of some sizable wagers against his own team and on LSU, which was playing Alabama. I say "been involved in," using passive voice, because evidently he didn't make the wagers himself. To put this in a Cliff Notes context, Alabama has a really good baseball team, but LSU is a top five outfit and arguably as good as anyone.

The trick to his wager was that Bohannon switched starting pitchers before the game, plugging in an inferior pitcher. The pitcher originally scheduled to start had back tightness, a legitimate reason to be scratched, and was Alabama's ace. This meant that an LSU bettor would have, at worst, a really, really helpful and inappropriate line. At best, if the switching of the pitchers became public sufficiently before game time but after the wager was made, the bettor might possibly have an arbitrage opportunity by betting LSU early and Alabama late after the number had moved.

In the last 24 hours, more details have become public involving the person who placed the bet(s) for Bohannon. Evidently, Bohannon is no genius, as he contacted the person physically placing the bets by using his own phone, which is Alabama property. Duh and double duh.

The Fallout

So now everyone is wondering if all college sports are invisibly laced with similar plotlines and relationships. Well, Mormons aren't big on gambling (allegedly), so maybe BYU gets a pass, but the answer to the question is that it's certainly possible. And media covering this story, to my knowledge, haven't even touched on an easy, oblique way for underpaid college coaches, especially assistants, to profit from very, very gray machinations that are, basically, impossible to prevent.

I'll let readers ponder the possibilities and will open my June blogs with a paint-by-numbers explanation as to how college assistants could be making a few bucks from betting without directly wagering on teams. Stay tuned.

Bob Dietz

May 27, 2023

LIV and Super Bowl III

With Brooks Koepka capturing the 2023 PGA Championship at Oak Hill with a dominant tour de force, it's time for me to saddle my bragging horse and spout off. We handicappers like explaining how we were right  and others were wrong, so I'll get right to it.

Back in 2022, many loud-mouthed golf pundits tried to blister Koepka, DeChambeau, Dustin Johnson, and Mickelson with nonsensical bad-mouthing. American and international media were flooded with pro-PGA propagandists posing as moralists. The cacophony of LIV criticism (as Howard Cosell might have said) was outlandish, well beyond mean-spirited, and laden with declarative absurdities. 

I laid out my defense of both the LIV tour in general, and Brooks Koepka in particular, in a series of July articles. I recommend readers check out the 2022 series:  "The Saudi Golf Tour (Part One)" from July 3; July 4's "The Comedic Writings of Eamon Lynch," and my July 5 "The Saudi Golf Tour (Part Two)."

The bottom line is that hired hacks like Eamon Lynch were proven wrong, and wrong by a wide margin. When it came time for major championships, Koepka and Mickelson tied for second in the 2023 Masters, and three LIV golfers cracked the top nine at Oak Hill. There is no questioning the quality of LIV golf. And there should also be no questions regarding the decision-making of Koepka, DeChambeau, Cam Smith, Dustin Johnson, and Mickelson. Koepka and DeChambeau undoubtedly benefited from the LIV schedule and workload in coming back from their serious injuries. They were able to rehab at their own, optimal pace. They are back, and it would be difficult to find fault in the processes that brought them to this point.

Super Bowl III

Rory McIlroy seems to have put away his PGA pom poms and cheerleading outfit for the moment. As I said in 2022, who the hell is McIlroy to comment on who should be facing what kind of competition? Could you imagine rookie Joe Namath turning down a 400K AFL bonus because the NFL was presumed to have better players?

I won't lie. I rooted for Koepka down the stretch Sunday. He was pulling his own version of Super Bowl III, and he was magnificent. Frankly, during his second round, Koepka could easily have scored three or four strokes better than he did. He was right there on every hole. He dominated.

The question I have for the Eamon Lynch crowd is whether they actually believed the mendacious tripe they were writing? Or were they just defaming the LIVers to coddle favor with establishment golf institutions? Either way, Lynch and his ilk should publicly apologize. Not for being moral absolutists, but for being so goddamn wrong that they look silly. It's hard to be any more wrong than Lynch.

He'll learn, I suppose. There's nothing dumber than propagandists who make actual public predictions.

Bob Dietz

May 23, 2023

NBA Anomaly

I rarely bet the NBA. Maybe once a decade I take an NBA future, and these have worked out well, but unless I see something making me an offer I cannot refuse, I steer clear.

I do, however, scan the playoff box scores and such, and at the conclusion of the Monday, May 1st games, I realized that I was looking at a truly anomalous set of statistics, about as rare as death by reptile.

My discovery went something like this. The Sixers had upset the Celtics in Game One of their best-of-seven. I decided to glance through the numbers and see how a Philly team without Embiid had done it. The result itself hadn't been terribly surprising, as I felt any team with an X-factor like Harden has a shot in any given game. But these stats, they were truly something else.

The Numbers

First I looked at Boston's field goal percentage. They had lost; maybe they had an off night from the floor. I gagged. They had shot 58.7% from the field. Holy hell. Teams almost never lose shooting  58.7% from the floor, especially in playoff games. 

Next I thought, "Well, maybe they bricked some free throws or perhaps they just didn't shoot many." I halfway choked. The Celtics had shot 94.4%, making 17 of 18. The Sixers had shot just 12, making all of them.

Okay, so how did Boston lose? The next theory was that maybe Philly killed them on the boards. Nope. Boston outrebounded the Sixers by 10, 38 to 28. Yowza and double yowza.

I had never seen a team at any level, high school, college, or professional, pull off that statistical trifecta and lose a game. Boston shot almost 59% from the floor, 94.4% from the line while shooting more free throws, and had a plus-10 rebound margin. And lost. Unbelievable. I was looking at stats that may never be repeated by a losing NBA team again.

What Does It Mean?

Damned if I know. It's a massive statistical anomaly. When the Allegheny, the Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers join, this kind of statistical confluence should result in a one-sided win for Boston. Amazing.

As to what happens next (and Game Two is in progress as I write this), well, if Boston puts up numbers like that every game, they should win every game. With Embiid returning and Harden still an X-Man, however, I can't bet on it. Or maybe I can.

All I know for certain is that I will likely never again see stats like that conjoined with a result like that in my lifetime. It's always good to recognize a white crow when you see one.

Bob Dietz

May 3, 2023

Ninety-Six Frugal Hours: Homage to Jean Scott

I've followed Jean Scott, she of the Las Vegas Advisor's "Frugal Gambler" blog, since she first began writing. Back in the 80's and early 90's, while staying in Las Vegas 90 days a year each football season, Ms. Scott's tips and coaching helped me survive on very tight budgets.

These days, I do most of my Las Vegas football scouting, checking futures odds and evaluating available contests, during an annual July trip lasting just a week or so. In the past, most books have held off on college football futures odds and finalizing contests until July. But with sports wagering now legal in many states, some Las Vegas books are posting futures odds earlier so as to beat states to the punch. There is, after all, only so much money (in theory) to be committed by the public to football futures. Thus, in 2023, I decided to head west in April. An April excursion, it turned out, offered the opportunity to exercise some long out-of-shape frugality muscles. As I designed the trip, I realized that April offered some opportunities to, ahem, be cheap that weren't likely to be available in July. Emulating Ms. Scott while also emulating the frugal me of my youth, it turned out, were admirable goals, but easier said than done. I managed to channel her frugal essence in some instances but failed badly in others.

Flight and Hotels

The flight itself was a jackpot of frugality. I had never taken any flight to Las Vegas for just 15,000 air miles, much less a flight from the relatively small TRI (Tri-Cities) airport. But I was able to procure such a flight, and my outgoing went through DFW, which I prefer.

I have, however, lost some of the oomph of my youth, and my flights turned out to be a bit more of a physical challenge than expected. The outgoing flight required a dash through DFW and a late-night arrival in Las Vegas. The return flight required a pure red eye to Charlotte with a four-hour layover, and those E terminal connections in Charlotte rarely go without a hitch. That 15,000-mile frugality came with a physical cost. 

My hotel choices featured a night at the Horseshoe (the strip casino formerly known as Bally's), a couple of nights at the Four Queens, and a night at the Tuscany. I waited to book the Horseshoe until I knew I would make my DFW connection, therefore I got a good rate, but not the best. My late arrival, however, led Horseshoe to upgrade my room. Very much appreciated. I try to support the Four Queens since it's one of few Las Vegas hotels that doesn't tack on a "resort fee." Four Queens was fine. My final night featured a Hotels.com booking at the Tuscany, one of my favorite places. Combined with my first night at the Horseshoe, I added two notches to my Hotels.com stash enroute to a free room (10 notches). 

The Gambling

I did almost no actual gambling this trip. I scouted numbers, reviewed limits at various sports books, and verified that ownership/brand changes had not yet affected the aegis of on-site books at the Horseshoe and Mirage. I also verified that South Point no longer had satellite books downtown. My other responsibility was to pin down a schedule for a documentary filmmaker friend who'll be visiting Las Vegas in July. He needs a structured short list of mob highlights and locales. 

In terms of table and machine play, I used a couple of Las Vegas Advisor coupons to massage me through maybe two hours of video poker play with a net loss of, ta daa, $34.

Recreation and Food

I used an LVA  coupon to knock four dollars off my Mob Museum admission. The museum is impressive, and one can spend a full day there if invested in the subject. I had intended to spend at least half a day at Area 15, but between horrendous traffic and the fact that I had a vehicle rented for just 48 of my 96 hours, I decided to save Area 15 for a longer trip.

My opinion of the South Point buffet matches its LVA ranking. In a world where the charm and value of old-style LV buffets have almost disappeared, the South Point buffet has created a time capsule of quality and price. I must also give a thumbs up to happy hour at Oscar's, which featured very reasonable prices in a very attractive setting. In addition, while at the Four Queens, I had my usual bang-up breakfast at Magnolia's.

Of course, I also availed myself of the classic off-menu Ellis Island $9.99 steak special, right around the corner from the Tuscany. You no longer have a beer included, so I shelled out four bucks for an iced tea, but it was still a retro meal deal in a nice room with great service. I was flanked by two couples also enjoying that special.

The Car Rental

In keeping with the frugal spirit, I plugged into the lowest price two-day rental on Priceline, which required picking up and dropping off at Treasure Island. Well, as I waited in line to pick up at the Dollar kiosk hidden away on the second floor, I eavesdropped on customer after customer being told that the only vehicles available for their reservations were electric, and none had a full charge because Dollar did not have a working charging station. The most-charged car was at 57%.

Fortunately, my reservation had been made sufficiently in advance (and paid for in advance) that they had saved me an actual gasoline vehicle. My renting a car, however, turned out to be a royal pain. 

Las Vegas is redesigning and repaving the strip in preparation for a November Formula One race, which is evidently a bigger and more profitable deal than hosting a Super Bowl. Las Vegas Boulevard was therefore one lane in each direction from Paris to the Stratosphere, and the roads to the west of the strip were a labyrinth of cones and detours. Just a mess, and it doesn't figure to improve anytime soon. Had I attempted night-driving west of the strip, it would have been a complete horror. It was the worst non-holiday traffic I have seen in Las Vegas in 45 years. 

Blowing Taps on Frugality?

Every frugal day has its downside. The absence of certain frugal Gibraltars has had its effects on me. I had never fully recovered from the closing of the classic buffet/coffee shop at the Fremont Casino, and I was suddenly, surprisingly confronted with no Fremont Casino Lanai Express, my hangout for dollar shrimp cocktails and good soft ice cream. First no Golden Gate shrimp cocktails; now no Lanai Express. Very disturbing. It crushes my frugal spirit. 

I'll no longer shop for inexpensive car rentals since driving is such a major mess. If I need to check South Point or M, I'll do an on-site-wherever-I-am rental for 24 hours, regardless of cost, and live with it.

And as usually happens on flights through Charlotte (my return), my E-terminal flight was delayed a couple hours. There's nothing like plopping down in a freezing airport at 5 AM after a red eye and realizing (1) you're going to be there longer than expected and (2) there are three flights all delayed and scheduled out of the same little gate at the same time, so nobody knows nothin' about when you might actually get out of there. That 15,000 air-miles round trip came with a cost, as I said earlier. I won't be doing red eyes through Charlotte again. I'm just too damned old.

A Final Homage

Ms. Scott always kept a cheerful disposition in her writings, regardless of outcome or hassles. I try to do the same, but I'm not nearly as disciplined. 

I'm glad there's still an Ellis Island steak special (sans beer) and a South Point buffet and some classy happy hours. But I mourn the Lanai Express and the old bakery shop in Caesars' Palace, and I miss the overpriced but quality buffets at Paris and Harrah's and Planet Hollywood. I even miss the birds outside the old Flamingo buffet. I wonder how the hell anyone taking the strip busses can possibly get anywhere with one-lane traffic in both directions and pedestrians still crossing the strip. 

Las Vegas has always felt like home to me, a place where wits and judgement and frugality combined to present opportunities. In April, however, Las Vegas seemed more like a grotesque tourist trap, offering little in the way of playable video poker or slot clubs with meaningful benefits.

Perhaps my tone has been skewed by my sampling a $13 pastry called a "Feather" (glorified banana bread), featured where my favorite Caesars' Palace coffee shop has been replaced by a more bourgeoisie pastry counter. Or maybe that return red eye drained my 65-year-old positivity a bit. We'll see how dampened I am soon enough, as I'm scheduled to return to Las Vegas in July.

Until then, perhaps it's true that we cannot go home again. But just in case, someone please ask Jean Scott to save a chunk of Ellis Island steak for me. And tell her to lay off the Feathers. They're bad for the wallet, and bad for the frugal soul.

Bob Dietz

April 30, 2023

Dungeons and Drag Queens

On March 31, the eve of House Bill 9 banning Tennessee drag queens from performing in front of sub-18-year-olds, I attended a drag show initially scheduled for the student center at East Tennessee State University. The venue was changed 72 hours before the show as ETSU, in its usual conservative-pandering gutlessness, moved the performances to the Millennium Center across the street. The reason given was some non-legal mishmash regarding wanting to follow the spirit of the law before it became law. When the implementation of the law was delayed by a judge's order hours before it was to take effect, ETSU was predictably left with uber conservative egg all over its administrative face.

Can you imagine being forced to share a foxhole with the ETSU administration? Gumby has more backbone.

I'm not particularly big on drag shows, having attended just six or seven in my 65 years, but I'm a free speech advocate, so I was there. To me, the drag queens' arguments were obvious and persuasive. How can a state legislate that one subset of people dressing a certain way and performing dance routines is legal (say, ETSU cheerleaders) and another subset of people similarly dressed and performing the same routines is illegal? 

In other words, how can behaviors be deemed illegal based solely on gender? How can a state legislate differential treatment under a law? It's a hypocritical, self-contradictory can of worms. 

What Do I Know?

What do I know about the effects of drag performances on the minds of those under 18 years of age? I know nothing. It's not a research subject I've ever explored, much less kept current regarding. I have zero idea of the behavioral consequences of seeing one, two, or five thousand drag shows. I have no real opinion of what those effects might be on 15-year-olds, 10-year-olds, or five-year-olds. But I also have no idea what the effects of watching cheerleading championships or online porn have on those same age brackets. I guess life is one big mystery to me since I don't have the clairvoyant powers of the Tennessee state legislature.

What I do know is that you can't say that a man dancing a certain way and dressing a certain way is guilty of a felony and a woman behaving identically is not. One would think that even (and maybe especially) the hardest right-leaning incels would back the drag queens based solely on men's rights.

Keeping Letters Separate

What surprised me about the event was the dichotomous forced-choice message being promulgated by both the event's speakers and the "you're going to hell" protestors outside.

The Tennessee legislature had also passed a bill preventing "gender affirming" medical treatments for young people. In other words, transsexuals would have to wait until they are adults to commit to medically changing genders. Personally, I have no qualms with this. Get a little living under your belt before deciding which gender you want to inhabit for another 50 years. Evidently, however, based on the crowd's reaction to various speakers, I'm one of the few drag queen proponents to feel this way.

All of the gender letters seem to be glommed together as some kind of distressed super-minority. None of the speakers, including presidential candidate Marianne Williamson, separated the drag queen debate from the underage pick-a-gender debate. Logically, I find this bizarre. The topics could not be more different except for the fact that not many people imbibe of drag queening or medical gender change. 

White Dolemite

If you ever run into me while I'm wearing a maroon brocade suit and matching sequined shoes, look closely at my lapel. There'll be a name tag reading "White Dolemite."

I'm a big fan of Eddie Murphy's film My Name is Dolemite. I saw the original Rudy Ray Moore Dolemite movies when I was an undergrad at Penn State. In Murphy's biographical homage to Moore, he explains in one scene that he's not really a pimp. He's playing a character, a very carefully designed and detailed character. Such is the case for the drag queens in the Millennium Center show. They're promoting planned, practiced performance art. They are demonstrating an art form. They're playing characters. What the drag queens are experiencing can be described as the polar opposite of what underage transsexuals are experiencing.

Whereas the queens are performing well rehearsed characters and know precisely what they're doing on stage, underage transsexuals argue that they are being pressured to perform off stage in a gender that doesn't suit them. That they are being forced, moment to moment, to live inauthentically. 

From a locus of control perspective, the dichotomy is clear. The drag queens are imposing their characters on the outside world. The underage transsexuals see the outside world as imposing on them and trying to define them. Really, these two disparate groups have little logical reason to be politically joined at the hip. One contributing factor creating this kind of odd team-up is the moral/legal certitude (some might say fascism) of legislatures such as Tennessee's. Criminalizing folks does tend to provide some common political ground.

Drag Queens in Dungeons?

When GOP legislators in these states that are as RED as my initials try to justify their extreme moral authoritarianism, they usually muck things up as they did with the drag queen legislation. For example, somebody found a YouTube video of a queen lap dancing a 10-year-old. Doesn't matter if it's one queen out of a thousand. Doesn't matter if it happened years ago. Doesn't matter if there are 5,000 drag queen YouTube videos and it's the only inappropriate one. The offending video becomes the raison d'etre for banning drag performances in front of minors.

Being a gambler, I recoil at the ramifications of this misuse of evidence. If the GOPers were consistent in their intent and morality, every minor would be banned from stepping foot in a Catholic church, given the proven pedophiliac propensities in the Church's past. That, however, hasn't made it into a House Bill 10.

The drag queen components of House Bill 9 propose that drag performances in the presence of minors are a misdemeanor at first conviction and thereafter a felony. I'd like to suggest that readers look up Tom Holland's performance of Rihanna's "Umbrella" on Lip Synch Battle. Holland was performing for all ages, so he was guilty of at least a misdemeanor (in Tennessee), given his pelvic thrusts while dressed in drag. Not only that, if he had previously rehearsed in front of fans, he would be guilty of a felony since he performed more than once. He'd be headed to a dungeon for draggin'.

And finally, a warning for the political creatures who think a collection of letters sewn together as a political force must be a good thing. The problem with this theory is that you never really know if hindsight will render one or more of the letters as an irrefutably bad path for most people. When you sew everything together, one defective part can leave you helming a patchwork PAC, not capable of saying much that's specific, stumbling into unintended consequences. 

Just ask Victor Frankenstein.

Bob Dietz

April 14, 2023

March Madness Meta

March Madness is, as Marx or Hemingway might write, an opium of the people. Something to distract from the sea of manipulative corporate control in which we find ourselves immersed. March Madness is one of a handful of iconic American sporting events that function as a kind of scuba gear whose foul air somehow generates the hallucination of clean breathing.

March Madness has grown over decades into one of the major gambling foci of the American sports year. And while gambling, as Hemingway added, was "an opium of the people if there ever was one," gambling is only tangentially related to today's entry.

The elements and foibles that have led March Madness to its prominent spot on the American stage are worth mentioning. My observations are banal and obvious, but that doesn't render them untrue. The culture of March Madness can, from an Orwellian perspective, be quite unsettling.

What is March Madness About?

Well, first of all, months and months of the college basketball regular season feature continual speculation regarding where teams should be placed, if at all, in the post-season tournament, and who should be ranked where based on what. It's all very erudite in an intense obsessive kind of way, but the only reason such speculation exists is because the 350 teams reside in compartmentalized leagues with very little interaction between the disparate conferences. All of the pseudo-academic debate takes place in a context that assumes teams with designated 5-Star athletes are better than teams with designated 3-Star athletes. Other assumptions include the idea that teams paying their coaches more are intrinsically better than teams paying their coaches less, that teams playing in buildings that seat more people are superior to teams playing in buildings with fewer seats, and that teams on television regularly are better than teams that are not.

These are fascinating assumptions, fascinating in the sense that there is no reason for any of them to necessarily be very true. And if they are a bit true, the confidence and degree to which they are true may be wildly exaggerated. 

Basketball teams, as I and the movie Hoosiers argue ad nauseum, are organisms. They are not collections of individuals, 5-Star or otherwise. If we are at the point where the smallest team in Division 1 knocks off a one seed, and where alleged blue blood collections of 5-Stars in Kentucky, Kansas, and Duke are routinely shown an early exit despite all the advantages of their seeds, then what is the point of presumptive seeds at all other than to protect television ratings and to promote players/coaches/teams who have been promoted in the past?

All of these assumptions, presumptions, and overt legacy-team rigging contribute to the opposite of what sport is supposed to be. It's something akin to Soviet skater-judging in events held in the Soviet Union. If you stay upright, legacy carries you a long way.

The Meta(s) of March

Does any of this ring a bell?

People compartmentalized into disparate populations based on income of parents, the size of the home in which one lives, the notoriety and accomplishments of immediate relatives. Also, compartmentalized possibilities for income based on social exposure, being ranked by others, and evaluating people as individuals while ignoring how they have functioned and accomplished with unrelated others. 

It's obvious meta with the culture at large, of course, this March Madness stuff. Personally, I think it's got quite the resonance.

Another lesson to be learned from March Madness is the old theme of acquiescence to designated authority. Talking heads on every network "debate" the quality of teams without debating the quality of the debate process. Then everyone bows their heads, shuts their eyes and minds, and obsequiously waits for the white smoke from the Committee Conclave. A bunch of guys, mostly white, deciding that Purdue (with the team speed of a glacier) should be a one seed, Memphis (who damn near beat one seed Houston two out of three) is an eight, and Florida Atlantic (with 30 wins) is a nine. And those two 28+-win squads from FAU's league -- well, we've run out of white smoke.

Acquiescence to white guy conclaves. Capitalistic self interest (FAU didn't NOT accept a spot because their brethren got shafted). More capitalistic self interest (Memphis and FAU, playing each other after getting hosed, could have refused to play each other). Bow to the conclave. Cash your checks gladly. March Madness has considerable resonance with a corporate, authoritarian real world with more pseudo-expertise than actual.

Opportunity Versus Probability

If I had to choose the worst cultural Meta of March Madness, I think it might be the presentation of "an opportunity" as the equivalent of "a fair and equal opportunity." 

The NCAA Tournament Committee has been running simulations with various seeding scenarios forever. For years, they've been able to tell which slottings have what effects on teams' chances of advancing or winning. It's a kind of backwards engineering. Design the experiment to get the results needed. Sort of like student loans being approved based on zip codes, if I may stretch the resonance a bit.

There is an enormous sleight of mind being fed to American sports fans when simple inclusion in the tournament implies that a team has gotten fair and equitable treatment, and that inclusion in the tournament means that the overseers can now wash their hands since anyone in the tournament "has a chance." Like Jim Carrey's Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber being thrilled since there is "a chance."

This selling of "an opportunity" as "a fair opportunity" is the raison d'etre of American sports in general. The poor have a chance to become rich. What more could they ask? It's such an innumerate argument, waving empty canteens at a cultural desert full of people with the promise that one in a thousand canteens contains actual water. It's The Hunger Games in a TV-friendly format.

Conclusion

One of the great lines of March Madness television is the one about "They pass the eye test." As if everyone has the same set of eyes. More ominous is the implication that, regardless of our eye differences, we should all be seeing the same things anyway. 

When the essence of sport, the ritual of a level-playing-field competition, is co-opted and manipulated by conclaves with all of the power, it's time to recognize how corrupt and anti-sport the process has become. March Madness, unfortunately, has evolved into a homunculus of all the worst aspects of American culture as a whole. 

Bob Dietz

March 31, 2023

Smoking the Seeds: 2023

I've spent years debunking the Rube Goldberg machinations of the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee. Season after season, the members of said committee have been screwing non-brand-name teams by imposing bad seedings and manipulating bracket design in service of writing checks to the major conferences. Teams' Q-Ratings and potential overall television ratings seem to have been the committee's guiding lights.

Once upon a time, back in the era when RPI was the committee's dominant tool (and Missouri State, with a low-30's RPI, got royally hosed), the committee at least tried to be semi-subtle about it. As the years have passed, however, the committee has become about as subtle as a Trump rally -- white, loud, and indifferent to history or reason. They've massaged every major conference wannabe winner into the tournament while designing gauntlets to squeeze the pesky low-Q teams out ASAP.

The Toughest Region

As most seasons unfold, I usually invest between 4K and 5K on assorted long shots, half of which are generally of the non-brand-name variety. This year I invested just dinner money on a couple of teams. When I saw the East bracket, I was glad I had just dinner money on the line. Literally half the teams I considered were in the East region. My initial reaction to the East was that it was arguably the toughest region of all time. 

The East had two hugely underrated sleepers in Florida Atlantic and Oral Roberts. I thought there were three or four teams in the East better than Purdue. Charles Barkley predicted that Memphis would handle Purdue in the second round. So did I. The problem was Memphis first had to face the nine-seeded, 30-win FAU Owls, whose three losses had all been on the road. Why FAU was a nine, I couldn't tell you. Why Memphis was an eight, I couldn't tell you, either. Memphis had hammered Houston in the AAC final and had almost beaten them a second time. Houston was a one seed; why was Memphis given no respect?

The East also had Kentucky, Tennessee, and Duke, all potential Final Four teams. Plus a tourney-scary Michigan State. And I'm not even mentioning the one through three seeds (Purdue, Marquette, and Kansas State). 

What sins did these teams commit to all be jammed into this bracket from hell?

Shoehorns and Exclusions

The usual collection of Big 10 teams was shoehorned into the tournament. Teams that were frozen out included Liberty, a couple of AAC squads in Tulane and Cincinnati, and two teams from Conference USA, North Texas and UAB. 

My arguments for these teams go something like this:  Kennesaw State had three-seed Xavier on the ropes in their tournament game until a late no-call turned the tide. Liberty was comparable to Kennesaw. If Houston was all that, then the AAC should have been assigned more teams. Tulane and Cincinnati had similar records to those shoehorned Big 10 squads. Given the Big 10's questionable showing in the tournament, it's not a reach to suggest that Tulane and Cincinnati deserved serious consideration. And finally, given FAU's run, it's also not a stretch to conclude that 29-7 North Texas and 28-9 UAB should have been invited. 

The shoehorning of Big 10 teams is, as I said, an annual abuse.

Clearing the Smoke

The conference tournaments prove nothing and extend an already too-lengthy college season. Key injuries occurred in a handful of conference tournaments; Kentucky, UCLA, and Houston were all the worse for it. Players either aggravated existing injuries by trying to play or suffered injuries during the conference tournaments themselves. These conference tourneys cost the blue bloods this year. 

The tourneys exist primarily to pad brand-name conference coffers, so it's fitting that blue blood greed led, in the long haul, to fewer NCAA tourney checks for those blue bloods.

Basketball teams are organisms, not collections of individuals. The brand names suffered mightily as injuries mounted and fragile chemistries affected by those injuries melted down in the cauldron of one-and-done. What surprised me most was that some experienced off brand teams that figured to be good but not overwhelming, such as Creighton and San Diego State, handled squads with more firepower. 

Conclusion 

Going forward, all we can hope is that the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee will make note of their errors, admit their malfeasance, and swear off their unfair seedings. Yes, perhaps the next time three Conference USA teams win 28 games or more, the committee will consider taking more than one of them. And maybe consider giving one of them a seed higher than nine.

But -- LOL -- let's not hold our breath waiting.

Bob Dietz

March 28, 2023